D.C. Will Fine You For Calling A Transgender Person The ‘Wrong’ Pronouns

Employers and employees in Washington D.C. are legally prohibited from referring to a transgender employee or coworker by the “wrong” pronouns or asking “personal questions” about their gender identity, according to the city’s Office of Human Rights (OHR).

OHR published a best practices guide for “valuing transgender applicants and employees” earlier this month with a list of “behaviors by supervisors or coworkers [that] may be considered unlawful harassment or a hostile work environment.”

One of the listed prohibited behaviors is: “Deliberately misusing a person’s preferred name or pronoun.”

“Asking personal questions about an individual’s body, gender identity or expression or transition” and “Posting offensive pictures or sending offensive communications” are also among the prohibited behaviors.

The guide states, “The District uses the probable cause standard in determining whether the above constitute harassment or a hostile work environment.”

Stephanie Franklin, OHR’s interim director of policy and communications, confirmed in an email that “Any workplace environment in DC—private businesses included— in which supervisors or co-workers deliberately misuse a person’s preferred name or pronoun may be considered unlawful harassment and/or a hostile work environment according to DC law.”

The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

“Regardless of the legal name and gender, employers should use an employee’s desired name and pronouns when communicating with them, and when talking about them to third parties,” the guide states.

The guide says, “The employer must ensure employees respect and use a transgender employee’s preferred names and pronouns, as repeated failure to do so can be considered harassment, and can cause severe distress to a transgender employee.”

“When an employee transitions in the workplace, the employee and their supervisor should discuss how the employee wants to transition the use of their name and pronouns,” the guide later states.

“This can include establishing a date the employee wants to start using their new name in the workplace, which allows the employer to complete the tasks necessary to ensure the preferred name is reflected on outward facing documents.”

The guide also make clear that employees should be allowed to use the bathroom in which they’re most comfortable .

“Transgender employees should at all times be able to use the restroom and other gender-segregated facilities (such as locker rooms) that they are most comfortable with,” the guide states.

According to OHR’s annual report, all discrimination complaints must go through a mandatory mediation process, with an OHR employee serving as the mediator, in an attempt to reach a settlement.

In the 2015 fiscal year, 307 discrimination complaints (including race, gender and disability complaints) ended in settlements via the mediation process. In 2015, the annual report states, “more than $3.69 million was awarded in settlements during successful mediations, a 74 percent increase over [the 2014 fiscal year].” That averages out to more than $12,000 per settlement.

Accused parties that don’t settle discrimination complaints through the mediation process typically end up paying more than those who agree to a settlement.

Discrimination complaints that aren’t settled via the mediation process are decided by the city’s Commission on Human Rights, which is described by the city as “a quasi-independent body.” The annual report states that the commission resolved 13 discrimination complaints by decision or order in the 2015 fiscal year. The commission assessed $594,000 in penalties, averaging more than $45,000 in penalties per decision.

According to non-profit organization Workplace Fairness, D.C.’s anti-discrimination protections are “broader than federal law because you may prove your case by showing that your employer acted wholly or partially for discriminatory reasons, and because you can bring an individual claim against your supervisor for ‘aiding and abetting’ discrimination.”

------------------------

"Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
-Rainmaker, referencing black males

The “best practices” guide featues a chart on “gender and gender-neutral pronouns” that includes the gender-neutral pronoun “ze.” The chart includes example phrases using the gender-neutral pronoun, such as “Ze smiled,” “I met zir,” “Zir bike” and “Ze is zirself.”

“Regardless of the legal name and gender, employers should use an employee’s desired name and pronouns when communicating with them, and when talking about them to third parties,” the guide states.

So what's the point in HAVING legal names and such, if we have to refer to someone by what they FEEL they should be called? If i say i want to be known as the all mighty Spankeezy, does that mean they have to call me that??

So what's the point in HAVING legal names and such, if we have to refer to someone by what they FEEL they should be called? If i say i want to be known as the all mighty Spankeezy, does that mean they have to call me that??

This insanity is just getting more and more in the face..

Yeah... people are supposed to adopt a whole new language because of trannies?

Yeah, that's not happening...

"Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
-Rainmaker, referencing black males

Even as the only person here, apparently, with no issues with trans persons, the whole "Ze, Zir, Zim..." thing is nonsense to me. We have gender neutral pronouns, "they, them, their." I'm all for being respectful of how a person wants to be referred to, but "Z" is just silliness.

I see no problem with the over all HR policies. Purposely referring to a trans woman as "He" or a trans man as "She" is dehumanizing and just a rotten thing to do. You guys don't like the idea of transexuality, fine. You don't need to be a dick about it. Speaking of dicks, asking a trans person about their genitals is no different than asking a cis person about thier's, not cool.

Even as the only person here, apparently, with no issues with trans persons, the whole "Ze, Zir, Zim..." thing is nonsense to me. We have gender neutral pronouns, "they, them, their." I'm all for being respectful of how a person wants to be referred to, but "Z" is just silliness.

Unfortunately, grammatically it's incorrect to use "they", "them", and "their" when referring to a single person because those pronouns are plural. For instance, if you say "They are going to the movies" it means more than one person is going, so using it for gender neutral singular pronoun doesn't work.

Unfortunately, grammatically it's incorrect to use "they", "them", and "their" when referring to a single person because those pronouns are plural. For instance, if you say "They are going to the movies" it means more than one person is going, so using it for gender neutral singular pronoun doesn't work.

I find the term "cis person" quite offensive. I'm a "person" and I'd really prefer you refer to me that way.

I forgot about your safe space, apologies.

I had a problem with it too for a while, I guess I still do. I just don't like differentiating between trans people and people who are not trans by calling the latter just "person" or "normal," it's dehumanizing and goes back to the "don't be a dick" rule. Also, "cis" helps make writing about the issue more manageable in terms of writing and readability. Anyway, I definitely get how annoying it is to be labeled without my input or consent.

I had a problem with it too for a while, I guess I still do. I just don't like differentiating between trans people and people who are not trans by calling the latter just "person" or "normal," it's dehumanizing and goes back to the "don't be a dick" rule. Also, "cis" helps make writing about the issue more manageable in terms of writing and readability. Anyway, I definitely get how annoying it is to be labeled without my input or consent.

Disagree, not surprisingly I'm sure, 150%. I am a person. I am a male who is attracted to women. That is normal. Normal isn't a bad word, so don't be afraid of it. Well over 90% of people are "normal". That's what makes it normal. There is no need to have an adjective to describe someone within the norm, within the majority. Adjectives can be used to describe those things outside the norm.

Here's the definition of "normal":

1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2. serving to establish a standard.

3. Psychology.

a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b. free from any mental disorder; sane.

These are the definitions. Now, the problem comes in when people confuse the word "abnormal" with "bad" or "wrong" because abnormal doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong.

So, to add adjectives to "person" when describing a straight person isn't necessary and is just used to make abnormal people feel more normal.

Anything outside the norm can use adjectives if it's the adjective you want to focus on. For instance, if you want to be known as a gay male, then refer to yourself as a gay male. If you don't want "gay" to be the way people think of you, drop the adjective. Using it is just creating an abnormality in the large majority of normal people. It's making being gay the focus, and not the fact that you're a person.

Here's an example.

"I'm a woman" versus "I'm a strong black woman". Changes it quite a bit, and cause me to now focus on the adjectives instead of the pronoun. So now I'm going to start stereotyping immediately. That's what the adjective is asking for me to do.

So, I'm a "person"...you don't need to refer to me as "cis". As I said, I find that term highly offensive. I know it makes abnormal people feel better about themselves to qualify a person but to me it's the same as using a racist, sexist, or homophobic term to describe someone...